PRESIDENT WANTS TO INCREASE SIZE OF ARMED FORCES

By THOM SHANKER and JIM RUTENBERG; Carl Hulse contributed reporting.

Published: December 20, 2006

President Bush said Tuesday that the United States should expand the size of its armed forces, acknowledging that the military had been strained by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and would need to grow to cope with what he suggested would be a long battle against Islamic extremism.

''I'm inclined to believe it's important and necessary to do,'' Mr. Bush said. He said this was an ''accurate reflection that this ideological war we're in is going to last for a while, and that we're going to need a military that's capable of being able to sustain our efforts and help us achieve peace.''

Speaking in an interview with The Washington Post, Mr. Bush did not specify how large an increase he was contemplating or put a dollar figure on the cost. He said that he had asked his new defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, to bring him a proposal, and that the budget he unveils at the beginning of February would seek approval for the plan from Congress, where many members of both parties have been urging an increase in the military's size.

In interviews on Tuesday, administration officials said the president was speaking generally about the broader campaign against terrorism and was not foreshadowing a decision on whether to send additional troops into Iraq in coming months in an effort to stabilize Baghdad. Any big change in the size of the American military would take years to accomplish.

Mr. Bush told The Post, which excerpted the interview Tuesday on its Web site, that he had not made a decision about sending more troops to Iraq.

Coming the day after Mr. Gates was sworn in as defense secretary, Mr. Bush's comments indicated that the administration was breaking abruptly with the stance taken by Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former Pentagon chief, who championed the view that better intelligence and technological advancements could substitute for a bigger military.

Mr. Bush said his plan would focus on ground forces rather than on the Navy and the Air Force, telling The Post, ''I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops -- the Army, the Marines.'' There are about 507,000 active-duty Army soldiers and 180,000 active-duty marines.

Mr. Bush's comments were his most direct assessment that the armed forces were facing strain so serious that the nation should invest billions of dollars in expanding the military. Asked directly whether the United States was winning in Iraq, Mr. Bush quoted what he called the ''construct'' of Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: ''We're not winning. We're not losing.''

The president has come under increasing pressure from allies and critics, including Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who have warned that the Army could break under the stress of the demands it faces.

''I also believe that the suggestions I've heard from outside our government, plus people inside the government -- particularly the Pentagon -- that we need to think about increasing our force structure makes sense, and I will work with Secretary Gates to do so,'' Mr. Bush said.

Congress authorized a 30,000-soldier increase in the active-duty Army after the Sept. 11 attacks -- when the Army stood at about 484,000 -- in what was described as a temporary measure. Army officials say they hope to reach that authorized total troop strength of 514,000 by next year and would like to make that a permanent floor, not a ceiling.

To that end, the Army already has drawn up proposals to grow to up to 540,000, with some retired officers advocating an even larger increase.

The active-duty Army peaked at 1.6 million troops during the Korean conflict and stood at just below that figure during the war in Vietnam, before hovering around 800,000 for much of the 1970s and 1980s, according to Pentagon statistics. Following the first Persian Gulf war, which coincided with the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, the Army's active-duty force dropped first to below 600,000 and then below 500,000 before the increases ordered after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Any decision to increase the size of the Army and the Marine Corps would do little to meet the need for more troops should Mr. Bush order a significant increase of American forces in Iraq in 2007, as it takes considerable time to recruit, train and deploy new troops. Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, said last week that the Army could probably grow by only 6,000 to 7,000 soldiers per year.

Army officials have estimated that for each addition of 10,000 soldiers to the force, it would cost about $1.2 billion.

While it is not likely to determine the administration's decision about a short-term increase in troop levels in Iraq, a substantial increase in the size of the American military could give the United States more flexibility in setting and maintaining troop levels there over the long run. Army officials had already drawn up proposals for sustaining the Iraq and Afghanistan missions by drawing heavily on the National Guard and Reserves over the next several years.

But the prospect of mobilizing large numbers of those part-time soldiers would present Mr. Bush with a hugely vexing political problem as the Republican Party prepares for a campaign to hold the White House in 2008. The administration has promised to limit overseas deployments for the Guard and the Reserve, which have been used extensively since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Pentagon and military officials who were briefed on the president's discussions with the Joint Chiefs of Staff last week said that the classified briefing ranged broader than just how to win in Iraq.

The chiefs argued that the nation must not let the military's other capabilities lapse from commitments of personnel, equipment and money for Iraq, these officials said.

In particular, the chiefs expressed concerns that the United States must show enough strength to deter potential adversaries from aggressive moves based on an assumption that American power was bogged down in Iraq. That led to a discussion on the merits of expanding the military, officials said.

The president's statements were applauded by leading members of Congress who specialize in military affairs. Loren Dealy, spokeswoman for Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee, said that Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, who will become chairman of the panel in the new Congress, said after Mr. Bush spoke that ''Mr. Skelton has long supported the idea of increasing the end strength in both the Army and the Marine Corps.''

Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Tuesday night: ''I am pleased President Bush has finally recognized the need to increase the overall size of our military. I have been calling for such an expansion for several years.'' But Mr. Reed, who served in the 82nd Airborne Division, warned that the battle over troop numbers was not over.

''Now that the president is asking for an increase, he needs to follow through and put the money in the budget to pay for these soldiers,'' Mr. Reed said. ''It is imperative that this administration step up and honestly budget for the long-term commitment they have made in Iraq. If the president doesn't put forward a plan to pay for this in his annual budget request then this announcement is meaningless.''

Chart: ''United States Military Active-Duty Troops''

Graph tracks number of active military troops (Marine Corps, Air Force, Navy, and Army), measured in millions, from the Korean war through the current conflict.